ON
← Back to feed
A team of researchers gains access to secret OpenAI algorithms using Anthropic AI
Spain🏛️ PoliticsCenter

A team of researchers gains access to secret OpenAI algorithms using Anthropic AI

A team of independent cybersecurity experts successfully accessed internal systems of OpenAI using Claude, an AI model developed by Anthropic, OpenAI’s main competitor. They hacked into the corporate ChatGPT account of an employee, allowing them to view internal files and propose changes to OpenAI’s repository of secret algorithms. This attack was conducted as part of OpenAI’s official bug bounty program, which encourages security researchers to find vulnerabilities before malicious actors do. While they did not alter the code of ChatGPT, they provided OpenAI with evidence of how such alterations could have been made. OpenAI rewarded the researchers $6,500 for their findings. The breach occurred in July but was recently revealed exclusively to The Wall Street Journal. The researchers, from the firm Hacktron AI, raised further concerns about the security practices of major AI laboratories. They used Claude in a way that violated Anthropic’s terms of service. OpenAI has acknowledged the researchers’ findings, while Anthropic has remained silent on the matter.

A group of cybersecurity researchers has successfully gained access to internal systems at OpenAI using Anthropic’s AI model, Claude. The exploit was carried out through a corporate ChatGPT account belonging to an OpenAI employee, allowing the team to view internal files and propose changes to the company’s proprietary algorithm repository. This unauthorized access occurred during a sanctioned bug-bounty program run by OpenAI, a common practice in the tech industry designed to identify system weaknesses before malicious actors can exploit them. As a result, the researchers were compensated with $6,500 for their findings. The attack unfolded in early July, with the research team from Hacktron AI identifying a flaw in Discourse, the external platform hosting OpenAI’s community forum. Initially, they attempted to exploit the vulnerability using a specialized version of Claude Opus 4.8, but the attempt failed. However, following the release of Opus 5 by Anthropic later that same day, the team successfully exploited the weakness within three hours. With access to user credentials obtained through Discourse, they were able to log into ChatGPT accounts and penetrate OpenAI’s internal systems. Through this entry point, they reached Monorepo, the central repository where OpenAI stores some of its core algorithms, which are critical to the performance of its AI models. While the researchers did not manage to access the inner workings of ChatG’ts parameters, those determining how information is processed and responses generated, they were able to review official documentation and test the extent of their access. To demonstrate their intrusion, they submitted a request to modify the code under their team’s name. OpenAI acknowledged the breach, stating it had limited the permissions of community login tokens and revoked affected tokens and sessions. This incident adds to growing concerns over the security of large language models. Mohan Pedhapati, technology director at Hacktron AI, told The Wall Street Journal that while the team was not as powerful as Chinese threat actors, their ability to exploit the system highlights ongoing vulnerabilities. He noted that the reference to Chinese hackers alludes to a separate incident involving Anthropic, where a real attack from China reportedly breached its systems. The breach underscores the increasing sophistication of AI-driven security threats. Researchers from Hacktron AI emphasized that the entire process, from initial discovery to gaining access to OpenAI’s repositories, took less than 72 hours. Their disclosure came in a blog post, which was initially shared with The Wall Street Journal. OpenAI confirmed the breach and expressed gratitude for the researchers’ prompt reporting and cooperation in addressing the issue. Anthropic, meanwhile, has not issued a formal statement regarding the incident. However, the company previously raised alarms about the risks posed by AI, including the Hugging Face breach in July, where OpenAI’s AI systems allegedly collaborated to infiltrate another AI developer’s network. In a recent interview, Anthropic CEO Dario Amodei warned of “real dangers” surrounding AI and called for a slowdown in its development to mitigate potential harms. His comments align with broader calls within the tech industry for more cautious approaches to AI innovation.

How this report was made. Objective News wrote this report from 2 source articles, using AI-assisted synthesis under our methodology. It is our own text, not a copy of any single outlet. Read our methodology.

Responsible editor: Matej BašaSpotted an error? Report it

Go to the primary sources (1)

The official sources this coverage is built on. Read them directly to bypass framing.

2 reports

elDiario.es logoelDiario.esIndependentCenterFactual 75Objective 65
A team of researchers gains access to secret OpenAI algorithms using Anthropic AI

A team of independent cybersecurity experts successfully accessed internal systems of OpenAI using Claude, an AI model developed by Anthropic, OpenAI’s main competitor. They hacked into the corporate ChatGPT account of an employee, allowing them to view internal files and propose changes to OpenAI’s repository of secret algorithms. This attack was conducted as part of OpenAI’s official bug bounty program, which encourages security researchers to find vulnerabilities before malicious actors do. While they did not alter the code of ChatGPT, they provided OpenAI with evidence of how such alterations could have been made. OpenAI rewarded the researchers $6,500 for their findings. The breach occurred in July but was recently revealed exclusively to The Wall Street Journal. The researchers, from the firm Hacktron AI, raised further concerns about the security practices of major AI laboratories. They used Claude in a way that violated Anthropic’s terms of service. OpenAI has acknowledged the researchers’ findings, while Anthropic has remained silent on the matter.

Bias read (Center): The article presents the event factually, without overtly favoring any side. It includes quotes from both OpenAI and mentions the involvement of Hacktron AI, providing a balanced perspective on the security breach and its implications. There is no clear ideological framing or biased language.

Why factuality (75): The article reports on researchers accessing OpenAI's internal systems using Anthropic's Claude as part of OpenAI's official bug bounty program. It mentions the 6,500 USD reward and references the WSJ and Jacob Coxon's resignation. While these details align with common reporting on such incidents, s

Why objectivity (65): The tone leans slightly towards sensationalism by emphasizing the breach and potential existential risks. The article frames the incident as a significant security flaw without presenting counterpoints or broader context about OpenAI's security measures. The mention of 'peligro existencial' adds an

Público logoPúblicoIndependentCenterFactual: no official source document/info detectedObjective 55
A team of researchers manages to 'hack' OpenAI with the AI of Anthropic

A team of researchers has reportedly managed to 'hack' OpenAI using the AI developed by Anthropic. The research highlights potential vulnerabilities in AI systems and raises concerns about security risks associated with advanced artificial intelligence technologies. This development could influence future regulations and safety measures around AI deployment. The study underscores the need for robust safeguards as AI capabilities continue to evolve.

Bias read (Center): The article discusses a technical achievement related to AI security without taking a stance on political issues. It focuses on the technological implications rather than any political controversy or policy debate.

Why factuality: no official source document/info detected

Why objectivity (55): The brevity of this article makes it difficult to assess objectivity, but the phrasing 'hackear' (hack) implies a negative judgment without nuance. It does not present alternative viewpoints or contextual information, maintaining a one-sided narrative.

How each side covered it

The same event, grouped by the political lean of the outlets covering it.

How each side covered it

Support independent, bias-aware news and unlock the social pulse, community voting, and every other Supporter feature.

Become a Supporter

Covered around the world

The same event as reported in other countries.

Covered around the world

Support independent, bias-aware news and unlock the social pulse, community voting, and every other Supporter feature.

Become a Supporter

Claims check

Key factual claims, and how many sources assert vs dispute each.

Claims check

Support independent, bias-aware news and unlock the social pulse, community voting, and every other Supporter feature.

Become a Supporter

Keep the news honest.

ObjectiveNews is reader-funded and ad-free — we show you the bias instead of hiding it. Support independent journalism for €4/month.

Become a Supporter

Related stories